Peter Neski
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,191
2160p isn't 4k
A 16:9 2160p image will have 3840 pixels of horizontal resolution--it's essentially 4K.Peter Neski said:2160p isn't 4k
Originally Posted by RolandL /t/324723/will-blu-ray-support-ultrahd-would-you-buy-a-ultrahd-tv-and-a-new-blu-ray-player/30#post_3994860
Joe Kane said he did a demo of 2160p vs 1080p on a 84 inch screen to a group. They could not see any difference. Everyone said you needed a bigger than 84 inch screen to see the difference.
He didn't say.FoxyMulder said:What was their seating distance to the screen. ?
Actually, virtually all of the 4K versions of current films all originate from 35mm film.revgen said:Aside from 70mm titles like Lawrence of Arabia, I don't see the purpose of using 4k for older titles. New titles shot in 4K would benefit.
4k as defined by Digital Cinema specs is 4096 × 2160. 4K UHD (ultra-high-definition television) is 3840 × 2160.Peter Neski said:2160p isn't 4k
Hmm...interesting. I saw MIB 3 a few months back in 4K. It didn't really look that much sharper than a regular movie projection. So that must be it.Rob W said:Actually, virtually all of the 4K versions of current films all originate from 35mm film.
I know the logic behind that, far better to have a large user base when putting out possible 4K content but, i'd rather see a format optimized using the latest possible technology, i feel it would be a compromise to try and get 4K working on current blu ray tech, maybe they will prove me wrong and surprise me.Originally Posted by Toddwrtr
I'd like to belatedly thank the BDA and Panasonic for hosting a wonderful dinner party at Gordon Bierch (sp). I felt that the comments made by Andy Parsons were fair and honest, and am somewhat optimistic that the BDA really wants to avert another possible format war by researching to see if it would be possible to support UltraHD without having most consumers purchase an updated Blu-ray player.